Why are scientific articles so expensive?

[Ug make hammer]

Particularly since the majority of scientists get public money to do their research?

Journals are profiteering, based on their reputation and on a captive audience of academics. They are leaching off government money both in the research itself, and in the universities and colleges which have to buy subscriptions to keep their own students and academics up to date.

There are free alternatives, and good luck to them. But tell me why pirates should not simply steal the ill-gotten gains of the FOR-PROFIT journals, and make them freely available.

The public has a right to knowledge it has already paid for!

 

[Jredbaron96]

Just an FYI, if you can find the authors of the articles and email them, many of them will be happy to send you their papers free of charge.

When I was doing my college work on post-WWII Reconstruction I emailed two researchers who's studies were hidden behind a paywall, and they send me copies of their papers for free.

 

[BlueTex]

Particularly since the majority of scientists get public money to do their research?

Journals are profiteering, based on their reputation and on a captive audience of academics. They are leaching off government money both in the research itself, and in the universities and colleges which have to buy subscriptions to keep their own students and academics up to date.

There are free alternatives, and good luck to them. But tell me why pirates should not simply steal the ill-gotten gains of the FOR-PROFIT journals, and make them freely available.

The public has a right to knowledge it has already paid for!

They are leeching off the days when PRINT was the only way to distribute information...

 

[bluesmoke]

It is costly to publish, which cost falls considerably on the scientist who has already spent yrs researching and writing scientific study. Low-cost publishing houses are popping up that cut corners in the process, reducing time between article submission and approval to publish, which can only dilute the proofing of the studies.

What Is the Real Cost of Scientific Publishing? - Enago Academy

The scientific community is asking one important question–what is the real cost to publish an article in a scientific journal?

www.enago.com

Easy and short time to publishing can only lower the scientific quality of the publishing process, IMO.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It is costly to publish,

It's no more costly than you saying whatever on this forum. Printed copies, and postal costs, are obsolete.

which cost falls considerably on the scientist who has already spent yrs researching and writing scientific study.

Wait, you're saying the scientists have to PAY to be published in a scientific journal?

And you don't see a problem with that?

Low-cost publishing houses are popping up that cut corners in the process, reducing time between article submission and approval to publish, which can only dilute the proofing of the studies.

What Is the Real Cost of Scientific Publishing? - Enago Academy

The scientific community is asking one important question–what is the real cost to publish an article in a scientific journal?

www.enago.com

Easy and short time to publishing can only lower the scientific quality of the publishing process, IMO.

"Most journals are unwilling to disclose their publishing costs" gee I wonder why.

The only worthwhile service provided by journals is Peer Review. Do they pay scientific peers to review the studies?

 

[MamboDervish]

Particularly since the majority of scientists get public money to do their research?

Journals are profiteering, based on their reputation and on a captive audience of academics. They are leaching off government money both in the research itself, and in the universities and colleges which have to buy subscriptions to keep their own students and academics up to date.

There are free alternatives, and good luck to them. But tell me why pirates should not simply steal the ill-gotten gains of the FOR-PROFIT journals, and make them freely available.

The public has a right to knowledge it has already paid for!

It's called "being in business". They are not required to publish anything, but if they do they expect it to be profitable.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It's called "being in business". They are not required to publish anything, but if they do they expect it to be profitable.

My concern is for "compelled customers" and in particular the public. We're paying already, for all they publish, but if we want to view just one article the price is something like $25 dollars.

At best, it's subsidy of the scientific community. But I find it really hard to pay the money knowing that practically none of it will go to scientists. Why should I be fleeced just to take an interest in the work of scientists which I am already paying for?

A better system would be public donation directly to scientists, and the more donations they get the cheaper their papers would be to view.

 

[MamboDervish]

My concern is for "compelled customers" and in particular the public. We're paying already, for all they publish, but if we want to view just one article the price is something like $25 dollars.

At best, it's subsidy of the scientific community. But I find it really hard to pay the money knowing that practically none of it will go to scientists. Why should I be fleeced just to take an interest in the work of scientists which I am already paying for?

A better system would be public donation directly to scientists, and the more donations they get the cheaper their papers would be to view.

An article covering the subject, with Q&A, from the perspective of both the buyer, and the authors of scientific papers.

Why are academics not paid royalties on published research papers in IEEE, ACM etc.?

I understand that academics are not paid a single dime on their publications. In my field (computer science), IEEE, ACM, Springer, Elsevier are some known journals/publications and none of them pay

academia.stackexchange.com

 

[Slyfox696]

Particularly since the majority of scientists get public money to do their research?

Journals are profiteering, based on their reputation and on a captive audience of academics. They are leaching off government money both in the research itself, and in the universities and colleges which have to buy subscriptions to keep their own students and academics up to date.

There are free alternatives, and good luck to them. But tell me why pirates should not simply steal the ill-gotten gains of the FOR-PROFIT journals, and make them freely available.

The public has a right to knowledge it has already paid for!

I believe you seem to be confusing the release of research with one of the avenues the research is published. Most journals you seem to be speaking about tend to publish peer reviewed articles. Publishing peer reviewed articles simply will have more costs involved than publishing a PDF by the researchers. As has already been stated, often times the researchers will happily furnish you a copy of their research.

 

[Ug make hammer]

An article covering the subject, with Q&A, from the perspective of both the buyer, and the authors of scientific papers.

Why are academics not paid royalties on published research papers in IEEE, ACM etc.?

I understand that academics are not paid a single dime on their publications. In my field (computer science), IEEE, ACM, Springer, Elsevier are some known journals/publications and none of them pay

academia.stackexchange.com

Exhibit 2: Journals are guilty of IP theft also.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I believe you seem to be confusing the release of research with one of the avenues the research is published. Most journals you seem to be speaking about tend to publish peer reviewed articles. Publishing peer reviewed articles simply will have more costs involved than publishing a PDF by the researchers. As has already been stated, often times the researchers will happily furnish you a copy of their research.

Well that's nice. Now tell me why researchers don't release their papers publicly.

"On request" is not public release. Even assuming that the absurd PDF format is necessary, they could use bit torrent or some other free and server-free method to avoid costs on their university network. Hell, Google would host them if Google was permitted to.

Academics are captured by for-profit journals, because academics are mostly tech-illiterate and bad at business too!

 

[Slyfox696]

Well that's nice. Now tell me why researchers don't release their papers publicly.

Many many of them do. But the journals make it easier to find them.

"On request" is not public release.

But it does mean they are still publicly available.

Even assuming that the absurd PDF format is necessary

PDF is not an absurd format. This is an absurd statement.

they could use bit torrent or some other free and server-free method to avoid costs on their university network. Hell, Google would host them if Google was permitted to.

Academics are captured by for-profit journals, because academics are mostly tech-illiterate and bad at business too!

In other words, you have no idea what happens in the academic field.

 

[bluesmoke]

It's no more costly than you saying whatever on this forum. Printed copies, and postal costs, are obsolete.

According to the article, publishing is costly for the scientist and the publisher. I gave evidence. What's your evidence?

Wait, you're saying the scientists have to PAY to be published in a scientific journal?

And you don't see a problem with that?

I'm not saying anything than repeating and posting what's in the article.

Do you see a problem with a company charging for its service?

"Most journals are unwilling to disclose their publishing costs" gee I wonder why.

The only worthwhile service provided by journals is Peer Review. Do they pay scientific peers to review the studies?

You wonder. I post evidence.

The only worthwhile service provided by journals is Peer Review. Do they pay scientific peers to review the studies?

They publisher does pay scientific peers, which cost is passed on to the author. How much depends on their expertise in the given field of study. The newest form of publishing allows the authorship of the given article written to choose their own peers, regardless of background expertise. It costs much less than the standard of peer review that requires numerous peers with scientific expertise. The publisher can just pick out a couple scientists for their peer review process plus however many of family and friends the author chooses. It's becoming more like a Facebook/Twitter peer review of the author's choice, IMO.

 

[Ug make hammer]

According to the article, publishing is costly for the scientist and the publisher. I gave evidence. What's your evidence?

My evidence is the prices Elsevier and such charge, for online articles. Subscriptions are cheaper per article, fit to the purpose of universities, but we the taxpayers are paying for that too.

I'm not saying anything than repeating and posting what's in the article.

Do you see a problem with a company charging for its service?

I see a problem with a company that is adding zero value to the goods (articles) produced by others, charging money, yes.

I hadn't considered proof-reading, however it hardly seems significant. The only important errors would be in data, which the academic has to proof-read for themselves.

You wonder. I post evidence.

"I wonder" was rhetorical. Journals don't disclose their publishing costs, but we can easily infer that their publishing costs online are practically zero, and they don't need to produce a paper copy at all.

Printing pages exactly the way they appear on screen is the only value of PDF's btw. They're hard to copy-and-paste from, in fact sometimes they're deliberately formatted to be hard. They're contrary to Fair Use.

They publisher does pay scientific peers, which cost is passed on to the author.

Why on earth? They have plenty of money from journal sales, why do they need to charge the author anything? Their business wouldn't even exist without authors.

With a bit of luck, their businesses will cease to exist. Though I said the same about music companies and they're still doing fine.

How much depends on their expertise in the given field of study. The newest form of publishing allows the authorship of the given article written to choose their own peers, regardless of background expertise. It costs much less than the standard of peer review that requires numerous peers with scientific expertise. The publisher can just pick out a couple scientists for their peer review process plus however many of family and friends the author chooses. It's becoming more like a Facebook/Twitter peer review of the author's choice, IMO.

And I agree. If researchers are going to choose their own peers to review, then the process is worthless.

 

[Ug make hammer]

But it does mean they are still publicly available.

Thanks for the tip; I'll try it some time. However "easy to find it" would apply equally well if they used a non-profit publisher, funded by advertising or donations.

In other words, you have no idea what happens in the academic field.

Not organizing their own non-profit publishing means they're tech-illiterate, and paying commercial journals for the "privilege" of being published under a famous journal name, means they're bad at business.

It would be remarkable if academics outside of STEM were good at computers, or outside of Business Studies good at business. You don't get really good at some field by taking on work you could pay for, outside that field.

Academics should be paid for their IP, an not have to pay to publish it.

 

[bluesmoke]

My evidence is the prices Elsevier and such charge, for online articles. Subscriptions are cheaper per article, fit to the purpose of universities, but we the taxpayers are paying for that too.

I see a problem with a company that is adding zero value to the goods (articles) produced by others, charging money, yes.

I understand your notion that at least the traditional publishers charge too much, but you've not produced evidence of what that margin is nor that it is too much. Publishing companies are private enterprise. They have every right to charge what the market will bear, like it or not. My concern is with the publishing companies that are coming anew, charging much less but do hardly the proofing that traditional publishers do, and being effectively govt subsidized such as the following:
https://www.realclearscience.com/ar..._is_a_scam_fed_by_the_government_829132.html#!

I hadn't considered proof-reading, however it hardly seems significant. The only important errors would be in data, which the academic has to proof-read for themselves.

No. Not simply "proof-reading". That's not my point. It's about proofing the science of the article.

"I wonder" was rhetorical. Journals don't disclose their publishing costs, but we can easily infer that their publishing costs online are practically zero, and they don't need to produce a paper copy at all.

Online costs are beneficial to widening the profit margin, yes. Especially when the cost cutting is of scientific proofing, assuring nothing of the scientific validity of any article in question.

Printing pages exactly the way they appear on screen is the only value of PDF's btw. They're hard to copy-and-paste from, in fact sometimes they're deliberately formatted to be hard. They're contrary to Fair Use.

Any govt subsidized entity that disallows copy-paste is contrary to Fair Use.

Why on earth? They have plenty of money from journal sales, why do they need to charge the author anything? Their business wouldn't even exist without authors.

Normally in publishing, it's the author that gets paid. However, scientific authors simply don't attract the buyers that romance and other authors do. So, the govt steps in and pays them for their work to assure the public access to science. So, the publisher, like any private enterprise, looks for the money and, there it is!

With a bit of luck, their businesses will cease to exist. Though I said the same about music companies and they're still doing fine.

What luck? You want scientific publishing to cease? Please clarify.

And I agree. If researchers are going to choose their own peers to review, then the process is worthless.

Such worthless publishing is being cited by posters who pose as scientific minded.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Such worthless publishing is being cited by posters who pose as scientific minded.

While others who pose as scientifically minded, quote the introduction which is publicly available. And they can't be disputed unless their opponent has the university access or the cash to read the whole article.

And even then, they can't quote whole articles under "fair use". It should all be free, to publish, to peer review, and to read.

Why should science be kept away from the people? Are scientists afraid of amateur criticism?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Particularly since the majority of scientists get public money to do their research?

Journals are profiteering, based on their reputation and on a captive audience of academics. They are leaching off government money both in the research itself, and in the universities and colleges which have to buy subscriptions to keep their own students and academics up to date.

There are free alternatives, and good luck to them. But tell me why pirates should not simply steal the ill-gotten gains of the FOR-PROFIT journals, and make them freely available.

The public has a right to knowledge it has already paid for!

Should the journals do their work for free? Or do you think they should be nationalized?

 

[Mr Person]

I hadn't considered proof-reading, however it hardly seems significant. The only important errors would be in data, which the academic has to proof-read for themselves.

Your statements were answered already, but I really have to wonder. Did you really think all that "peer review" means is that someone proof reads the publication documenting the study?

It means other people who know what they're talking about review it for validity, ie, for whether the conclusions and inferences drawn follow from the stated data; findings and methodology. Peer reviewed articles are thus inherently more trustworthy. And while there are drawbacks to peer review, the advantages far outweigh them.

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Entirely independent of that, there's a sort of secondary de facto review, not peer review, which occurs as other researchers attempt to replicate results.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Should the journals do their work for free? Or do you think they should be nationalized?

They should face lower-cost competition, and since that's happening already we should just wait and see.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Your statements were answered already, but I really have to wonder. Did you really think all that "peer review" means is that someone proof reads the publication documenting the study?

It means other people who know what they're talking about review it for validity, ie, for whether the conclusions and inferences drawn follow from the stated data; findings and methodology. Peer reviewed articles are thus inherently more trustworthy. And while there are drawbacks to peer review, the advantages far outweigh them.

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Entirely independent of that, there's a sort of secondary de facto review, not peer review, which occurs as other researchers attempt to replicate results.

From your source:

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?​ Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).

Since peer review is the one most vital part of the journal's role, how are they getting away with charging for it?

 

[RAMOSS]

Thanks for the tip; I'll try it some time. However "easy to find it" would apply equally well if they used a non-profit publisher, funded by advertising or donations.



Not organizing their own non-profit publishing means they're tech-illiterate, and paying commercial journals for the "privilege" of being published under a famous journal name, means they're bad at business.

It would be remarkable if academics outside of STEM were good at computers, or outside of Business Studies good at business. You don't get really good at some field by taking on work you could pay for, outside that field.

Academics should be paid for their IP, an not have to pay to publish it.

THere is a mozilla extenstion called 'unpaywall' that if there is a free version of the article out there, it finds it for you.

 

[bluesmoke]

THere is a mozilla extenstion called 'unpaywall' that if there is a free version of the article out there, it finds it for you.

MSN posts many articles from paywall publishers as a free version.

 

[Indydave]

Particularly since the majority of scientists get public money to do their research?

Journals are profiteering, based on their reputation and on a captive audience of academics. They are leaching off government money both in the research itself, and in the universities and colleges which have to buy subscriptions to keep their own students and academics up to date.

There are free alternatives, and good luck to them. But tell me why pirates should not simply steal the ill-gotten gains of the FOR-PROFIT journals, and make them freely available.

The public has a right to knowledge it has already paid for!

capitalsim

 

[bluesmoke]

While others who pose as scientifically minded, quote the introduction which is publicly available. And they can't be disputed unless their opponent has the university access or the cash to read the whole article.

And even then, they can't quote whole articles under "fair use". It should all be free, to publish, to peer review, and to read.

Why should science be kept away from the people? Are scientists afraid of amateur criticism?

I agree. Incl credible peer review.